Those who want you to doubt that anarchy (self ownership and individual responsibility) is the best, most moral, and ethical way to live among others are asking you to accept that theft, aggression, superstition, and slavery are perhaps better.
Assume “they” got rid of every semi-automatic weapon and every firearm that was owned by someone who isn’t a government employee who is armed as a condition of his “job”. (Impossible, but let’s pretend.)
Even all cops are only armed with revolvers or pump-action shotguns.
Would that stop mass shootings?
Nope.
One cop who snapped could kill dozens of unarmed people with his revolver, because who could do anything about it? You think that wouldn’t happen? How cute.
There is no way to completely end mass shootings. The best approach is to make certain any potential mass shooter faces armed resistance. And, again, anyone who can’t be trusted with a gun can’t be trusted around children.
The response to the evil loser in Nashville has been predictable in just about every way.
Including the observation that the only way to stop these things in their tracks is armed people among the things you want to protect. Children and employees, in this case.
And the outcry from the anti-gun bigots is the same as always. “A gun did this and you want more guns? You want to arm teachers instead of taking the guns away from everyone?“
I’ll just say what I’ve said in response: If you don’t trust someone with a gun, you shouldn’t trust them with your children.
If I don’t trust someone with a gun, I don’t trust them. Period.
Not as well as I would have liked. That seems to be the theme.
I learned I have to go to another appointment– another 180+ mile round trip– on Friday, to meet with a doctor who will be assisting the main surgeon (due to a unique medical history complication). I begged for an alternative. There is none I can live with.
This trip was a monumental mess. I N-10-slee dislike medical stuff, and I hate bureaucracy– maybe nearly as much. Tuesday was a glorious mix of the two– I felt like Philip J. Fry swimming in Chunks, the 2-headed goat’s, pool.
And, of course, now the insurance problems begin. I’ll see if they get resolved or get worse.
I’m terribly frustrated right now. I’m (unwisely?) taking some of my frustration out on Twitter— if it doesn’t get me banned. I won’t be surprised if it happens this time.
Thank you for sticking with me through this. I know this isn’t what you come here to read about.
Today I’m heading to the hospital for my pre-registration stuff.
With all the recent and current stressors, I didn’t come up with anything topical to write. Not even with the Nashville evil loser’s mass murder event.
Kirby, last summer’s rescue kitten, and friend of Tobbles, lost his battle with FeLV today.
He would have turned 1 on April 7, 2023– just a week and a half from now.
He had a rocky, hopeless start. I did all I could, but the deck was stacked against him. At least I hope he was happy and comfortable most of the time he lived with me.
I buried him under the redbud tree next to his friend Tobbles, who I buried there last July 3.
Whenever a government program is failing, the instinct of those who work in government is to do more of it. They insist on spending more money on it; finding ways to be more involved and controlling. It’s a bad instinct and leads to bigger failures. Eventually, failures so big they cause a collapse. It’s only a matter of time and degree…read the rest…
I do not believe government should ban TikTok. Government has no rights and shouldn’t have the power. That would be censorship.
Yes, even if it comes down to one government banning another government’s app.
I also don’t believe anyone should have TikTok on their phone, or use TikTok. I’ve never used TikTok, so I freely admit I hate it out of ignorance.
However, from the outside looking in, TikTok is obviously harmful. It brainwashes the young and the weak-minded into beliefs that hurt them and, when used to influence politics, it hurts all of us. But censorship hurts us all, too.
All social media is harmful in the same way, to lesser or greater extents. Don’t ban any of them.
I understand the arguments for banning it, I just don’t agree.
Seeing all the really dumb stuff justified by one brand of statist or another, I think it can be said with certainty that statism has jumped the shark, nuked the fridge, AND nuked the shark. Probably jumped the fridge, too.
Some days I don’t even know what to say– the statist stupidity from every direction just seems so ridiculous all I can do is shake my head and (try to) put it out of my mind.
I never thought statists were statists because they are “so smart”– I realize some are smart; their evil overtakes their smarts, but I just don’t see it in most of them.
But even if some statists are smart, statism itself is still dumb. It’s like a genius who arranges his life according to a horoscope.
But most statists aren’t evil geniuses. Just evil imbeciles.
Most don’t seem able to add 2 and 2 without trying to find a political angle that supports their preferred kind of slavery.
It doesn’t matter, I suppose. Stupid or evil, the results are the same. Be ready to defy and avoid.
People get rights mixed up with things the Constitution forbids government to do. Rights are things everyone should respect, whether or not the Constitution or any rules apply to them.
This idea that only government needs to respect your right to speak freely is kind of weird. Yes, they are the only ones specifically forbidden to censor you, but anyone who censors others is a bad guy. A jerk.
There’s nothing special or magic about the Constitution. Documents don’t create rights– rights have existed exactly the same throughout history and prehistory; thousands of years before the Constitution was written. Bad people have always looked for ways to violate those rights. That’s what defines a bad guy. The Constitution did nothing but lay out a roadmap telling government what rights it was forbidden to interfere with. (And it has been ignored, so the experiment failed.)
The right way to fight lies and “harmful” speech is with more speech, not censorship. Or, ignore it. If you censor (or demand someone else censor on your behalf), you’ve already lost the argument.
Someone might be able to tell you not to speak freely while on their personal property– but in most cases I’ll consider them a jerk for doing so. No, this doesn’t mean I would use government or legislation to force them to let someone speak, just that in my own mind I will put them in the “censor” category and have no respect for them on this issue.
I respect your right to speak freely, and I respect it hard. No exceptions. I am a free-speech absolutist.
Again, if you don’t like what someone says, say something better to counter it. Don’t try to forcibly silence them. It’s a bad look.
I’m glad that judges across the country are throwing out so many anti-gun rules.
However, it’s ridiculous to imagine anyone has to wait for a judge to throw out an unethical rule before they ignore it. That’s as bad as imagining slaves had to comply with their enslavement until slavery was declared illegal.
It’s also ridiculous that the anti-gun political monsters are allowed to keep violating natural human rights and fighting to keep their anti-human rules while they beg the courts to agree with them. And they are allowed to keep making up new rules every time they get smacked down. It should be “You were scolded for your misbehavior and now you’re done. Go home and never molest anyone ever again.”
That it doesn’t work that way illustrates how illegitimate all legislation, politicians, the court system, and the entirety of the whole mess truly are.
If I weren’t in the midst of my troubles I’d buy a Polymer80 kit, just to have on hand to finish at my leisure. But, maybe, there’s no need to rush now.
Kent's "Hooligan Libertarian" Blog 